Shameful Government Shameful PAP

[Asterix]

The best country in the world is one which does not have a state run welfare system but where families take care of each other.

Sad to say, there is no such country in this world and the reason is human beings are not perfect. Never has been and never will be.

Did you not say like a few days ago that you were a realist. Some thing to the effect that you take the world as you find it and not as it ought to be?

I'm not interested in well developed welfare systems. It's an oxymoron. If a welfare system has to be well developed, all it means is that there are large numbers of people who live well without having to work.

Some human beings are cheats but not all are. One should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

The more developed a welfare system is, the more useless layabouts there are in the country freeloading on the taxpayer.

Developed also means having a good mechanism to catch welfare cheats. Not all will be caught and yes those not caught will be a drag on society. However it is a price worth paying. I rather my tax be 1% higher than necessary to pay for the existence of such a necessary evil than be murdered on the streets by some guy who is homeless and desperate because of a non-existent welfare system.

In other words, I am a realist and choose the lesser of two evils.

If I pay a high tax (COE, etc) and those taxes are not adequately spent on welfare to create a society in which the rich can feel safe from the poor (they are adequately taken care of by the welfare system and hence do not have to rob me) but instead used to line the pockets of cronies or misspent in other ways such as on F35s, then I will be extremely angry and up sticks and go elsewhere! That elsewhere will also be where my capital goes. How about Monaco?

 

[tyudm]

Nothing to do with the PAP. It is part and parcel of climate change. No government can control nature.

Precisely, no one can control nature but LKY tries to control the flow of water by blocking the river mouth. Is he not trying to control nature?

 

[Leongsam]

Sad to say, there is no such country in this world and the reason is human beings are not perfect. Never has been and never will be.

Did you not say like a few days ago that you were a realist. Some thing to the effect that you take the world as you find it and not as it ought to be?

Some human beings are cheats but not all are. One should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I didn't say a perfect country existed. I said an ideal country would be one where welfare is not necessary because families take care of their own.

As for welfare cheats I have not chosen to even bring up this issue. There is a far more fundamental problem and that is that many welfare recipients get MORE on welfare than they would if they were working so where is the incentive to get a job???

Two months ago we demonstrated one of the biggest paradoxes of the current iteration of the US welfare state, in which a single mom earning gross income of $29,000 has the same disposable income after all net benefits as a worker who has gross income of $69,000.

As for the concept of a good welfare system making the rich feel more secure I suggest you google the crime stats of NZ and compare them with Singapore's figures. While NZ is 6th on the development index as you rightly pointed out, crime is through the roof in many parts of the country.

Anyone who feels safer in NZ than they do in Singapore needs to have his head examined.


Take a look at http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

Both Singapore and Japan with minimum state welfare rank way better than NZ when it come to safety.

Poverty does not breed crime. A sense of entitlement is what breeds crime. Welfare creates a culture where people feel that they have a right to help themselves to things which don't belong to them. The state steals legally from the hardworking citizens and hands it over to the lazy louts who then top it up by stealing whatever they think they deserve.

 

[Asterix]

I didn't say a perfect country existed. I said an ideal country would be one where welfare is not necessary because families take care of their own.

Such an ideal country does not exist. While some families will take care of their own and have absolutely no problems doing it say because their patriarch is Li Ka Shing, some will need assistance in financial terms, others in other ways e.g. guidance. Some are wise, but it would be a folly to assume that all are. In fact, if you ask me, most are quite dumb, but you take the world as you find it and not as you wish it to be. Bear in mind I use the word assistance and not total burden on the state. The degree of assistance will depend on the circumstances of each case.

As for welfare cheats I have not chosen to even bring up this issue. There is a far more fundamental problem and that is that many welfare recipients get MORE on welfare than they would if they were working so where is the incentive to get a job???

Therefore, you build into the system checks and balances. Just like we should have built into the system a way to check TemaSICK and GLC, ensure that no looney will over invest our hard earned savings on failing US and European banks without accountability, we need to build these into the welfare system.

Stop harping on unemployment benefits because welfare is more than that it includes healthcare, education, etc - a COMPREHENSIVE welfare system and not a half baked one run by Ministars paid OUT OF THIS WORLD salaries. And if indeed unemployment benefits are too generous in some places, they should be reduced, but that is not the same thing as saying that they should be abolished all together. That is the logical fallacy that you fell into.

As for the concept of a good welfare system making the rich feel more secure I suggest you google the crime stats of NZ and compare them with Singapore's figures. While NZ is 6th most developed welfare system in the world as you rightly pointed out, crime is through the roof in many parts of the country.

Anyone who feels safer in NZ than they do in Singapore needs to have his head examined.

Hello, NZ is ranked 6th on the UN Human Development Index and NOT 6th most developed welfare system. Please READ CAREFULLY.

Many factors affect the national crime rate. It could be that NZ has developed welfare system but fucked up policing and education system. Could also be that Sinkieland under reported crime to made the polis look better. I certainly feel much safer where I am residing now then I ever did in Sinkieland and that was before the influx of unqualified immigrants. Ceteris paribus (all other things being equal - which by the way they seldom are), a developed welfare system would have a positive impact on crime rates.

Both Singapore and Japan with minimum state welfare rank way better than NZ.

Japan does not have minimum state welfare system. You got your facts wrong.

http://www.japan-zone.com/new/welfare.shtml

Social welfare, assistance for the ill or otherwise disabled and for the old, has long been provided in Japan by both the government and private companies. Beginning in the 1920s, the government enacted a series of welfare programs, based mainly on European models, to provide medical care and financial support. During the postwar period, a comprehensive system of social security was gradually established. Government expenditures for all forms of social welfare increased from 6% of the national income in the early 1970s, to 18% in 1989. The mixture of public and private funding have created complex pension and insurance systems. But a much older tradition calls for support within the family and the local community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Japan

 

[Leongsam]

Such an ideal country does not exist. While some families will take care of their own and have absolutely no problems doing it say because their patriarch is Li Ka Shing, some will need assistance in financial terms, others in other ways e.g. guidance. Some are wise, but it would be a folly to assume that all are. In fact, if you ask me, most are quite dumb, but you take the world as you find it and not as you wish it to be. Bear in mind I use the word assistance and not total burden on the state. The degree of assistance will depend on the circumstances of each case.



Therefore, you build into the system checks and balances. Just like we should have built into the system a way to check TemaSICK and GLC, ensure that no looney will over invest our hard earned savings on failing US and European banks without accountability, we need to build these into the welfare system.

Stop harping on unemployment benefits because welfare is more than that it includes healthcare, education, etc - a COMPREHENSIVE welfare system and not a half baked one run by Ministars paid OUT OF THIS WORLD salaries. And if indeed unemployment benefits are too generous in some places, they should be reduced, but that is not the same thing as saying that they should be abolished all together. That is the logical fallacy that you fell into.




Hello, NZ is ranked 6th on the UN Human Development Index and NOT 6th most developed welfare system. Please READ CAREFULLY.

Many factors affect the national crime rate. It could be that NZ has developed welfare system but fucked up policing and education system. Could also be that Sinkieland under reported crime to made the polis look better. I certainly feel much safer where I am residing now then I ever did in Sinkieland and that was before the influx of unqualified immigrants. Ceteris paribus (all other things being equal - which by the way they seldom are), a developed welfare system would have a positive impact on crime rates.



Japan does not have minimum state welfare system. You got your facts wrong.

http://www.japan-zone.com/new/welfare.shtml

Social welfare, assistance for the ill or otherwise disabled and for the old, has long been provided in Japan by both the government and private companies. Beginning in the 1920s, the government enacted a series of welfare programs, based mainly on European models, to provide medical care and financial support. During the postwar period, a comprehensive system of social security was gradually established. Government expenditures for all forms of social welfare increased from 6% of the national income in the early 1970s, to 18% in 1989. The mixture of public and private funding have created complex pension and insurance systems. But a much older tradition calls for support within the family and the local community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Japan

You obviously have not read http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?166570-Shameful-Government-Shameful-PAP&p=1688262#post1688262

Japan is cutting back because it has seen how state welfare destroys societies.

As Japan Times reports, "welfare benefits will be slashed by ¥74 billion over a three-year period starting from fiscal 2013,

As for calling your own government half baked when it is one of the most respected governments in the world, all I can say is you don't know how lucky you are to be living in Singapore. You should learn to count your blessings and appreciate what the PAP has done for you. The government may have its flaws but I can tell you from first hand experience that is far better than the clowns NZ has to put up with.

You have also failed to mention the comprehensive package of assistance programs that Singapore provides. The Singapore government does not leave people to starve. It does the right thing in ensuring that the lazy aren't better off than those who earn an honest day's work and that's how it should be.

 

[Asterix]

You obviously have not read http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?166570-Shameful-Government-Shameful-PAP&p=1688262#post1688262

Japan is cutting back because it has seen how state welfare destroys societies.

Hello, knock knock. In post #43, you misrepresented that Japan has a minimum welfare system and that is not the case.

State welfare does not destroy societies. There is no proof for your broad and unsubstantiated statement. If it did, Japan would not have risen to be a world power, conquered large parts of Asia, got defeated and rose from the ashes like a phoenix, all the while having a developed welfare system which started in the 1920s and was fine tuned along the way and being humans, they don't always get it right. Are you going to stop using a kitchen knife because you might make a mistake when handling it?

Of course I had read that link. Japan is cutting back from a welfare system that has gone too far. It is not abolishing its welfare system or bringing it down to Sinkieland's 3rd World levels. Let's be clear about that.

As for calling your own government half baked when it is one of the most respected governments in the world, all I can say is you don't know how lucky you are to be living in Singapore. You should learn to count your blessings and appreciate what the PAP has done for you. The government may have its flaws but I can tell you from first hand experience that is far better than the clowns NZ has to put up with.

It is THE government and not MY government and indeed it is half baked. I know it first hand. Better than Malaysia and Indonesia does not make that Gahbrament good in my eyes and far from Swiss standard which by the way was used to justify their OUT OF THIS WORLD salaries.

Since when did I say I am living in Singapore? Hello, isn't this sentence in post #44 clear enough:"I certainly feel much safer where I am residing now then I ever did in Sinkieland and that was before the influx of unqualified immigrants."

Well, the world is your oyster, if you are not happy with New Zealand you can always go back to Sinkieland. Why are you not doing that?

 

[Leongsam]

Hello, knock knock. In post #43, you misrepresented that Japan has a minimum welfare system and that is not the case.

State welfare does not destroy societies. There is no proof for your broad and unsubstantiated statement. If it did, Japan would not have risen to be a world power, conquered large parts of Asia, got defeated and rose from the ashes like a phoenix, all the while having a developed welfare system which started in the 1920s and was fine tuned along the way and being humans, they don't always get it right. Are you going to stop using a kitchen knife because you might make a mistake when handling it?

Of course I had read that link. Japan is cutting back from a welfare system that has gone too far. It is not abolishing its welfare system or bringing it down to Sinkieland's 3rd World levels. Let's be clear about that.



It is THE government and not MY government and indeed it is half baked. I know it first hand. Better than Malaysia and Indonesia does not make that Gahbrament good in my eyes and far from Swiss standard which by the way was used to justify their OUT OF THIS WORLD salaries.

Since when did I say I am living in Singapore? Hello, isn't this sentence in post #44 clear enough:"I certainly feel much safer where I am residing now then I ever did in Sinkieland and that was before the influx of unqualified immigrants."

Well, the world is your oyster, if you are not happy with New Zealand you can always go back to Sinkieland. Why are you not doing that?

While we can each have our opinions regarding what welfare does or does not do, the stats do not lie. Singapore's tough stand against welfare has made it one of the most successful nations on earth.

No matter what index you look at, Singapore is right at the top. For that, I congratulate the PAP and I hope they toughen their stand against welfare in the years to come despite the political cost.

I'm certainly not in NZ for the welfare. I love it here because it has so much more to offer than a hot, humid, overcrowded Island in the middle of a Muslim sea.

 

[Asterix]

While we can each have our opinions regarding what welfare does or does not do, the stats do not lie. Singapore's tough stand against welfare has made it one of the most successful nations on earth.

No matter what index you look at, Singapore is right at the top.

The stats (which by the way are massaged by the Gahbrament and one can check out many articles on this including those by Mr. Leong Sze Hian) do lie or shall I say do not paint the complete picture.

By the way, Singapore is right at bottom of some happiness index. If the figures say it all, then Sinkies must be crazy people or more likely Sinkies are not crazy and the figures mask many unsavoury things. And yes, Sinkies are ball-less.

For that, I congratulate the PAP and I hope they toughen their stand against welfare in the years to come despite the political cost.

Well the political cost is yet to be known and may rise as the years go by hopefully before it's too late. In any case, in a democracy, what kind of welfare system the country should have ought to be decided by the people and not by any political party regardless of how dominant it has become due to dirty tricks, et cetera.

I'm certainly not in NZ for the welfare. I love it here because it has so much more to offer than a hot, humid, overcrowded Island in the middle of a Muslim sea.

I didn't say you were, but should you happen to lose all your money due to some unforeseen circumstance and all your children have yet to become wage earners or God forbid do not live up to the Confucian ideal, then you will count your lucky stars that in addition to a great climate, New Zealand also has a comprehensive welfare system.

By the way, we are discussing the utility of a welfare system to a country and not whether any particular individual might need it or not due to his own peculiar set of circumstances. Like you I don't need the welfare system personally, but I recognise its utility at a macro level.

 

[Leongsam]

The stats (which by the way are massaged by the Gahbrament and one can check out many articles on this including those by Mr. Leong Sze Hian) do lie or shall I say do not paint the complete picture.

By the way, Singapore is right at bottom of some happiness index. If the figures say it all, then Sinkies must be crazy people or more likely Sinkies are not crazy and the figures mask many unsavoury things. And yes, Sinkies are ball-less.



Well the political cost is yet to be known and may rise as the years go by hopefully before it's too late. In any case, in a democracy, what kind of welfare system the country should have ought to be decided by the people and not by any political party regardless of how dominant it has become due to dirty tricks, et cetera.



I didn't say you were, but should you happen to lose all your money due to some unforeseen circumstance and all your children have yet to become wage earners, then you will count your lucky stars that in addition to a great climate, New Zealand also has a comprehensive welfare system.

By the way, we are discussing the utility of a welfare system to a country and not whether any particular individual might need it. Like you I don't need the welfare system personally, but I recognizse its utility at a macro level.

None of the data that I look at is massaged. Infant mortality, life expectancy, per capita GDP, currency stability, asset values, interest rates, infrastructure development, crime rate etc.

Singaporeans are not happy because they're spoilt and don't realise how lucky they are.

If any of my children claimed welfare benefits, I'd disown them.

People aren't in a position to know what is good for them. It is human nature to want everything. For example NZ voted for interest free student loans. It has been a financial disaster and cost the country billions not to mention the fact that many kiwis have skipped the country and not paid their loans back.

A capable government is needed to manage the country and implement policies which are for the good of the country in the long term despite the fact they may not be popular with the electorate.

 

[Asterix]

If any of my children claimed welfare benefits, I'd disown them.

I am not talking about your children claiming welfare. You may not need the safety net now, but can you guarantee 100% that your net worth will always allow you to afford basic medical care? An unforeseen event can wipe out all of your wealth and that is when NZ's comprehensive welfare system kicks in. And if your children are still in school, the education subsidies will pull them through. It's like an insurance policy. I thought you were a firm believer in insurance.

So, should such an unforeseen misfortune fall upon your family, you will disown them?

People aren't in a position to know what is good for them. It is human nature to want everything. For example NZ voted for interest free student loans. It has been a financial disaster and cost the country billions not to mention the fact that many kiwis have skipped the country and not paid their loans back.

Well that is democracy. At least the decision was made by the people and not by some 90 year old Fart that just refuses to die. And with this negative experience, the NZ people will learn and be more careful when voting for welfare measures.

A capable government is needed to manage the country and implement policies which are for the good of the country in the long term despite the fact they may not be popular with the electorate.

An unpopular government is not a capable government especially when the electorate is educated and knows or ought to know what is good for the country in the long term taking into account tangible as well as INTANGIBLE factors.

 

[freedalas]

This is the best thread for a very long time. Boy, am I so very glad that Asterix is thrashing Leongsam and rubbishing the nonsense he's spouted point by point. So obvious that Leongsam clutching at straws - Asterix has totally demolished him. In doing so, Asterix had also shred into pieces the myths the PAP had created on welfare. Just one point to add. Germany is one of the highest spending nation on welfare. Has the country gone down the drain as the 90 year Old Fart and his balls carrying Leongsam had claimed?

 

[Leongsam]

This is the best thread for a very long time. Boy, am I so very glad that Asterix is thrashing Leongsam and rubbishing the nonsense he's spouted point by point. So obvious that Leongsam clutching at straws - Asterix has totally demolished him. In doing so, Asterix had also shred into pieces the myths the PAP had created on welfare. Just one point to add. Germany is one of the highest spending nation on welfare. Has the country gone down the drain as the 90 year Old Fart and his balls carrying Leongsam had claimed?

The issue is not about how successful a country with a welfare system is. There are welfare states that are far ahead of countries with zero welfare eg the Nordic countries vs the African nations.

The issue is about how unfair the welfare system is to hardworking members of society who pay taxes on time plus put in long hours to feed their family doing an honest job.

In NZ, in the UK the US etc, many welfare recipients have no plans whatsoever to got back to work for the simple reason that they would end up earning LESS.

If Singapore starts doing the same, it will be a disaster as the work ethic built up over the last 4 generations will be destroyed in less than 1.

Singapore is not a large country with a multitude of resources. It depends 100% on the attitude of its people towards work. Destroy that attitude and the country goes down the drain in no time at all.

The problem with many of the arguments here is that they are put forth by those with an agenda against the PAP and this clouds their thought process and prevents them from making rational decisions and judgements.

You need to look beyond PAP bashing to decide what is best for a country. A welfare state is definitely not a cure for whatever ails Singapore. What is needed is an improved work ethic and an acknowledgement that Singapore is a vulnerable nation that needs to be governed well or it will sink in no time.

 

[Dreamer1]

An ideal system for an ideal country was coined by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.

In the Marxist view, such an arrangement willhe be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs

Because of human sinful nature,all such experiment have failed so far whereby almost all communist countries (except Castro's Cuba) have reverted back to the worst form of State Capitalism as what is being practised now in Communist China - the evil regime,partly inspired by our founding father - LKY.

But the real communism as will be practised by Almighty God Allah Jehovah when he returns to rule the earth he had created,schedulled in November 2048,so we wait with welfare as practised by Denmark-the most happy country with the most happy people in the world now till then.

Sunmoon Testament–A Covenant Between Jehovah and Human Beings 《玄武之约—— 華渚與人類的約法》
http://sunmoontestament.blog.com/2009/10/30/sunmoon-testament/

 

[Asterix]

The issue is about how unfair the welfare system is to hardworking members of society who pay taxes on time plus put in long hours to feed their family doing an honest job.

You pay premiums for insurance. If you do not get seriously injured or killed within the validity period of the insurance policy and hence have not "benefited" from having the policy, do you say that it is unfair and sue the insurance company for a refund of all premiums paid to date?

In NZ, in the UK the US etc, many welfare recipients have no plans whatsoever to got back to work for the simple reason that they would end up earning LESS.

Like I said ad nauseum before. One does not have to copy everything lock, stock and barrel. We can also learn from their negative experiences and build into the system mechanisms for weeding out the true lazy bums.

If Singapore starts doing the same, it will be a disaster as the work ethic built up over the last 4 generations will be destroyed in less than 1.

Singapore is not a large country with a multitude of resources. It depends 100% on the attitude of its people towards work. Destroy that attitude and the country goes down the drain in no time at all.

I don't think the work ethic is that great in the first place. What kind of culture is it when people can boost that they spent their army days as pass C and make friends envious.

In Israel, even people with genuine medical problems try their very best to get into combat roles. For later in life, if others found out that you were a clerk or storeman in your army days, you will be discriminated against. The stigma is that strong and that is as it should be.

You need to look beyond PAP bashing to decide what is best for a country. A welfare state is definitely not a cure for whatever ails Singapore. What is needed is an improved work ethic and an acknowledgement that Singapore is a vulnerable nation that needs to be governed well or it will sink in no time.

Working smart is just as important if not more than working hard. Critical thinking and creativity is what make man king of the apes. It was a creative lazy bum who invented the wheel barrow. That creative genius is also most likely to hate censorship, dictatorship, dirty tricks to fix the opposition, lack of accountability, etc. In other words, creative people with good work ethic hate the PAP.

Unlike the old days when creative geniuses who invented the wheel barrow, crossbow, etc has to live under Qin Shihuang whether they liked it or not because the penalty for trying to emigrate is death by a thousand cuts, now the creative can cross international borders freely and conveniently.

On another note, I agree with you that a welfare state is not a panacea for all of SG's problems, but some features of a welfare state may need to be implemented to rectify problems created by bad policies of the Scums in White accumulated over five decades.

What is paramount to the concept of democracy is: it is for the People to decide what kind of features of a welfare state they want and whether or not they are willing to pay for it and if so how with references to sources of revenue which exist in reality and not just in the imagination. Certainly not for some 90 year old man about to eat joss stick and hardly attends Parliamentary sittings any more but nonetheless controlling all the levers of PUBLIC money to decide.

 

[Leongsam]

What is paramount to the concept of democracy is: it is for the People to decide what kind of features of a welfare state they want and whether or not they are willing to pay for it and if so how with references to sources of revenue which exist in reality and not just in the imagination. Certainly not for some 90 year old man about to eat joss stick and hardly attends Parliamentary sittings any more but nonetheless controlling all the levers of PUBLIC money to decide.

You're digressing when you bring joss sticks and old men into the debate.

This isn't about the evil deeds of LKY. It's about the pros and cons of a welfare state.

We will never agree because we are in different quadrants of the political compass. Please take the test and see for yourself.

Here's my result.

 

[Asterix]

You're digressing when you bring joss sticks and old men into the debate.

This isn't about the evil deeds of LKY. It's about the pros and cons of a welfare state.

We will never agree because we are in different quadrants of the political compass. Please take the test and see for yourself.

Here's my result.

You are digressing when you bring the political spectrum into the debate and bring nothing to the discussion on the pros and cons of a welfare system.

By the way, the debate never is about to have or not to have a welfare state. It is never a yes or no choice. PAPzis and those who can't argue always like to the fudge the issues when they can't meet the other side head on.

As you pointed out elsewhere SG does have some welfare programs. The questions are whether to have more of such programs and if so what; the degree and extent; how are these to be funded; what mechanisms to prevent abuse; etc.

The answers to these questions at a personal level depends on where along economic left/right one stands. However, in a democracy, you respect the decision of the majority or up sticks.

Some French on the economic right may oppose Hollande's measures but if these are supported by the majority in a fair and square democratic process, they either go along or cease to be French (legally but I doubt ever culturally). There's another option - continue to influence the majority of the error of their ways - through the democratic process. In the meantime if the majority has voted for 75 % income tax, one either play along or get lost or go to jail when caught.

The other aspect of left/right is authoritarian versus anarchy. A representative democracy is somewhere in the middle between authoritarianism and anarchy. Through its mechanisms (free and fair elections, free press, etc) for finding out the popular will, the views of the populace on what aspects of a welfare state they wish to have are found out and the wheels of state activated to implement that will.

This is not the proper thread to go into how a perfectly good Westminster model of democratic governance has been turned by the Old Fart and his Lightning Scums into a mockery - AIM, PA, GRC, Shit Times, etc. However I will point out that those who think that politics can be divorced from economics need to have their heads examined.

States on the right in terms of authoritarianism tend to be on the right in terms of economics. Why is that bad? The choice of left/right in economics in a dictatorship is made by who? The dictator of course and they are seldom kind especially first generation ones. That would be the Old Fart in the Sinkie context. I am sure most Sinkies can see that clearly enough.

Therefore, I challenge the Powers That Be to hold a genuine consultation on what sort of welfare measures the People themselves would like to have implemented. You might say that this is already done in GE. No, GE has many, many issues mingled together. Hold a consultation and referendum on just this one issue Swiss style. You can espouse your far right economic views then. Judging from the posts in this forum, you will not find much support for PAPzi's and your position.

 

[Leongsam]

Therefore, I challenge the Powers That Be to hold a genuine consultation on what sort of welfare measures the People themselves would like to have implemented. You might say that this is already done in GE. No, GE has many, many issues mingled together. Hold a consultation and referendum on just this one issue Swiss style. You can espouse your far right economic views then. Judging from the posts in this forum, you will not find much support for PAPzi's and your position.

The electorate does not have the brains to decide what is best for them. They need those with superior intellect to decide what is good and what is not. Singapore has to be run like a company not a country in order to succeed.

I favour the LKY brand of democracy where clowns are shut out of the process.

 

[metalmickey]

I'm certainly not in NZ for the welfare. I love it here because it has so much more to offer than a hot, humid, overcrowded Island in the middle of a Muslim sea.

Yeh like being in the middle of nowhere.

I love your strategy of trolling people in order to get them more interested and having more interesting discussions on your forum.

 

[Leongsam]

Yeh like being in the middle of nowhere.

I love your strategy of trolling people in order to get them more interested and having more interesting discussions on your forum.

It's good to have these sorts of discussions. It enables people to digest both sides of any debate. Life is never black and white and there is no perfect system of government. It's always about compromise.

Threads which contain nothing but page after page of derogatory comments about pappy dogs bring nothing to the table.

 

[Asterix]

The electorate does not have the brains to decide what is best for them. They need those with superior intellect to decide what is good and what is not. Singapore has to be run like a company not a country in order to succeed.

I favour the LKY brand of democracy where clowns are shut out of the process.

Avoiding a head on debate on the pros and cons of more welfare measures again?

If your preference is indeed for the LKY brand of dictatorship ahem I mean DEMONcracy then you had emigrated to the wrong place. I hope that whatever your views on NZ's welfare system, you pay your taxes in accordance with NZ's tax laws. Perhaps Russia or some of the Central Asian former republics would be more suitable for you e.g. Turkmenistan.

A country is different from a company. Even a 5 year old Swiss boy will know that but I doubt how many Sinkies know that even if they had migrated to First World countries.

Many are still Sinkies at heart. Just as in Sinkieland they vote on basis of "free" lift upgrading, many quitted on the basis of cheap cars, bigger houses, bettter climate, etc. Most can't even tell the difference between a Bose speaker and a Parliament speaker. Those are quitters. I on the other hand am an upgrader. East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet. Cheers.